Otto wrote:Greg:
I am addressing these comments to you as you seem to be the main proponent and most enthusiastic about changing to the Zone 7 Rules system. They have also been posted in the NEW PROPOSALS comment section. You know what, I smell a rat here...You and I are in the same Zone 8 TT Class which is II and it looks like you got tired of trying to catch up with me on the track so it looks easier for you to propose throwing out the window the set of rules we have and start from scratch?
More seriously, I don't quite agree with your desire to jump into this Zone-7-Rules system right this minute and throw in the trash the Rules system that we have been carefully developing over the years. I do agree with you that no system is perfect, ours included, and needs to be continuously reviewed and revised as we do ours on an annual basis.
I have concerns about the Zone 7 system however. Basically because it is for the most part a purely SUBJECTIVE point system . By this I mean that not only are the so-called BASE POINTS a SUBJECTIVE assessment of an "expert" panel but also every other modification including the WEIGHT related modifications are based on SUBJECTIVE points dictated by this "expert" panel. What is the rationale in charging 20 points to a car that has non-stock doors? Why not 10 points? or perhaps 30 points? The interior of one car does not weigh the same as another. What is wrong with using the tried and true ACTUAL WEIGHT IN POUNDS to determine the points for weight -related modifications? In that case the competitor can decide how and where will he take his weight reduction. He simply has to abide by a minimum weight which can be easily tested on a scale, every time. This straightforward and equitable system is part of our current rules and is practiced by ALL other racing organizations out there, save Zone 7. The list of questions that can be raised could go on and on.
Same goes for the BASE POINTS. Why should a 996 GT-3 be charged 530 BASE POINTS? Why not 740 BASE POINTS? Pick a number, only the "expert" panel knows the rationale. Our CLASS system instead is based on a grouping of cars by model which we believe are REASONABLY competitive with each other based on vintage, base horsepower and weight. Further our CLASS PROGRESSION assumes that newer, more powerful and feature-laden cars are faster and thus belong in a HIGHER class. There is however no attempt in our current classification system to establish a SUBJECTIVE numerical relationship between one class of cars and another. That we leave to our BRI factor system, all for fun, which allows us in a way to "equalize" all cars so we can be competing with ALL cars in a specific event, for those that want to get an idea of how they fared overall. Here again, the BRI system is a work-in-progress and is in fact ripe for a review at this time, but the system is in place.
Moreover, there are many of us out here that have spent more money than we care to admit in optimizing our cars to run in a CLASS system we felt was going to last. The brand-new system being proposed would require us to start that process again if we want to be competitive and can afford it. Is that fair? Nothing is eternal but we need some stability and not simply being forced to switch to an untried system as early as January of next year as proposed here.
Is the Zone 7 system fair? Don't think so. Have made some specific comparisons and seen results that are way out of line when comparing cars using our current system and Zone 7's. I notice that the bias is towards being too lenient with the newer, very powerful cars that do not need many modifications to be fast versus the older cars which require substantial weight reduction, engine modifications and tire packages to modestly improve performance. Consequently, under Zone 7 Rules some of these older, slower cars end up in a Class much higher than the newer, faster cars, something which does not happen under our current Rules system.
Since these comments are too long already, I will stop here but just want to let you know that I do not see this proposed change to be the way to go for Zone 8.
Yes, I invited you into this discussion, not to try and avoid you but to show the point of the large disparity between a car at the bottom of the point in a class and the top of the class. You have optimized your car and used your points well in the present system. I don't think your car will be any slower in the new system
Taking TTOD at Buttonwillow you seemed to compete well 
I agree that weight is an objective measure, but one that is not readily available at the track or stadium. Unfortunately, the interpretation of the weight rules is a more subjective exercise. I think that Zone 7 specifically avoided using weight measurements to make the implementation and enforcement simpler.
As regards the base points, there is a final subjective decision, but the guidelines are open. Below is the guidelines.
Greg (some difficulty in getting the appendix to format well, it is also here) http://www.pca-ggr.org/files/pdf/GGR%20 ... s%20v2.pdf
============================================================
Appendix G: Guidelines for Assigning Basepoints to New Models
Basepoints are determined by using power to weight ratios and other known data as a starting point, and may also include subjective adjustments to account for real world performance.
It is recognized that a newer car of equal power to weight ratio to an older car is likely to have a performance advantage dueto evolutionary changes in chassis, power characteristics and suspension.
It is recommended that, when assigning basepoints to new models, they be scrutinized using these criteria.
Step 1: Assigning "Initial Basepoints"
"Initial Basepoints" are assigned based on a formula using the car's power to weight ratio, model age and the width of its standard equipment wheels.
A car's power to weight ratio (PW) is calculated by dividing the PCNA published curb weight (lbs.) of the model (equipped with a manual transmission) by its PCNA published horsepower.
The calculated PW ratio is then used to determine the appropriate Initial Basepoints using the following formula:
(4000 / PW) + (year of model introduction - 2010) + (5 x (width in inches of one front + one rear standard-equipment wheel - 12 )) = Initial Basepoints
Explanation: This formula takes the inverse of the PW ratio and multiplies it by 4000
(creating a steepening curve that assigns progressively higher and higher basepoints for each incremental improvement in PW ratio,
then subtracts one point for each year since the model's introduction prior to 2010
(to grant a modest discount for age and, in future years, assign one additional basepoint per year for models introduced after 2010), and then adds 5 points for each inch greater than 12 of the car model’s standard equipment wheel widths
(this serves as a rough proxy to capture design and performance advantages inherent to models that were engineered to utilize wider wheels, and conversely the limitations of vehicles designed to use narrower wheels).
Step 2: Assigning Autocross "Adjustment Points"
Due to their particular handling traits, mid-engined cars and SUVs are also assigned "adjustment points" for Autocross only. Current "adjustment points" are listed in the table below.
Model Series
Adjustment Points
914 (all)+50 (AX only)
Boxster (all)+25 (AX only)
Cayman (all)+25 (AX only)
Cayenne (all)-25 (AX only)
Step 3: Other "Adjustment Points"
Other adjustment points may added to or subtracted from each model’s basepoints as part of the annual rule revision process if eemed appropriate in order to consolidate models, account for the performance potential of specific models or to better balance competition.
Final Basepoint values representing the sum of Steps 1-3 for each model shall be listed in Appendix A: “Base Model List.”
Would you still take that bet that the BRI is right if I said one of those top drivers would have to get in Joel's car and beat him by 5 seconds??? It's the same bet as betting the BRI over me. I'm not saying I'm a top driver by any means, just that there is pretty convincing evidence that the BRI is not accurate in this case.
I think GGR's system has it right in this case.
